How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2A
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1597
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:16 am
- Location: Ponder, TX
How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2A
John Paul Stevens, a now retired Supreme Court justice with a decideably left-wing tilt has an idea of how the 2nd Amendment should be fixed: add just 5 words to the Amendment to the Constitution.
Here's a link to the article profiling his idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a link to the article profiling his idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NRA-Life member, NRA Instructor, NRA RSO, TSRA member,
Vietnam (AF) Veteran -- Amateur Extra class amateur radio operator: N5WD
Email: CHL@centurylink.net
Vietnam (AF) Veteran -- Amateur Extra class amateur radio operator: N5WD
Email: CHL@centurylink.net
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 9655
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
- Location: Allen, Texas
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
no problem, try to amend the constitution if you can. Not likely in my lifetime.
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
- Location: Alvin
- Contact:
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
the fool just completed reinterpreted the constitution! why did I even read it?
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 7609
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
- Location: Near San Jacinto
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
It is incomprehensible that a supposedly learned man could even contemplate using the Constitution to install a military state. One has only to study history and recent global events to acknowledge the sheer stupidity of that statement and in comparison with what the framer's of the Constitution meant. The man is either incredibly obtuse, senile or downright against freedom and liberty in the US as we all know it.SewTexas wrote:the fool just completed reinterpreted the constitution! why did I even read it?
Last edited by puma guy on Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
This is a person that believes that the 2nd Amendment is a collective state right not an individual right. Therefore the right to bear arms can be regulated by the state.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 11203
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
- Location: Pineywoods of east Texas
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
Our Founding Fathers did okay up until they put in that thinghy about federal judges being appointed for life. Bless their hearts, they couldn't possibly foresee what we see today.....
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 26790
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
- Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
- Contact:
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
To cut to the chase (I couldn't bear to read the entire inanity), here is how he would change the 2nd Amendment:
He is obviously a traitor to the spirit of the founders.“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 11203
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
- Location: Pineywoods of east Texas
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
What I said above.The Annoyed Man wrote:To cut to the chase (I couldn't bear to read the entire inanity), here is how he would change the 2nd Amendment:He is obviously a traitor to the spirit of the founders.“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
Clayton E. Cramer takes him apart here: Justice Stevens and Flexible History
First para:
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had an op-ed piece in the Washington Post a couple of days ago that still has my brain doing backflips. He claims that, “Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce.” Stevens certainly did not believe this when he signed onto decisions overturning Texas’s sodomy law, or when arguing that state laws limiting abortion were unconstitutional, or when striking down Louisiana’s death penalty for raping a child (this is a pretty gruesome decision to read). So why is Justice Stevens suddenly so supportive of the wisdom of legislatures compared to judges? That’s for a simple reason: it’s about the Second Amendment.
Do go read the whole thing.
First para:
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had an op-ed piece in the Washington Post a couple of days ago that still has my brain doing backflips. He claims that, “Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce.” Stevens certainly did not believe this when he signed onto decisions overturning Texas’s sodomy law, or when arguing that state laws limiting abortion were unconstitutional, or when striking down Louisiana’s death penalty for raping a child (this is a pretty gruesome decision to read). So why is Justice Stevens suddenly so supportive of the wisdom of legislatures compared to judges? That’s for a simple reason: it’s about the Second Amendment.
Do go read the whole thing.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
____________
-
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:29 pm
- Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
I think that Stevens just scored points for the Pro Second amendment crowd by confirming our interpretation of the 2 amendment is correct. In order to be interpretated as the antis would like the second amendment would need to be changed.
I think we should thank Stevens for proving the antis wrong.
I think we should thank Stevens for proving the antis wrong.
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 7863
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
- Location: Richmond, Texas
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
If we change anything it needs to better define authority and limits of all three branches including SCOTUS and put teeth in the limits should they decide to exceed the limits.
Anygunanywhere
Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 6134
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
- Location: Allen, TX
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
Thankfully Stevens is just a private citizen, giving his view no more force than mine, and my opinion is that the entire preamble to the Second Amendment should be removed, resulting in "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
Stevens is just a sore loser trying to override the opinion of the highest court in the land, which he was a member of when the decision was rendered. If his opinion was that powerful, more would have voted with him than against him.
Stevens is just a sore loser trying to override the opinion of the highest court in the land, which he was a member of when the decision was rendered. If his opinion was that powerful, more would have voted with him than against him.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
That's a pretty good point.Right2Carry wrote:I think that Stevens just scored points for the Pro Second amendment crowd by confirming our interpretation of the 2 amendment is correct. In order to be interpretated as the antis would like the second amendment would need to be changed.
I think we should thank Stevens for proving the antis wrong.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
____________
-
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
I understand the theory behind lifetime appointments for federal judges. In my view, it was a good idea that simply didn't work. One who answers to no one but himself is or becomes a tyrant. The theory that a bad federal judge will be impeached is laughable. Congress has too much to do to deal with a single judge, much less several "bad" judges.
Chas.
Chas.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 9043
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
- Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)
Re: How Supreme Court Justice J P Stevens would change the 2
Another one of those things that sounds good in theory but not very practical when it comes to application?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.